'Overstepped his authority…': What are the scathing observations made by US trade court in ruling against Donald Trump's tariffs?

A US trade court has dealt a blow to President Donald Trump ’s reciprocal tariff plans saying that the American president has ‘overstepped’ his authority. The court has blocked the implementation of most of Donald Trump's tariff measures, leading to market gains on Thursday, despite the White House's challenge to the ruling by "unelected judges".

The court ruling is being seen as a considerable obstacle for Trump's efforts to reshape America's trade relations globally by implementing stringent tariffs to compel other nations into negotiations.

The reciprocal tariffs intended to penalise countries with trade surpluses against the United States, has caused massive instability in financial markets globally. Trump has maintained that trade deficits and drug import concerns are a "national emergency", warranting extensive tariff implementation.

On April 2, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs, establishing a basic rate of 10 percent, with additional charges imposed on several economies, particularly China and the European Union.

Also Read | Explainer: What is 'TACO trade' - a new nickname mocking Trump's tariff approach

Market uncertainty decreased after he temporarily suspended the huge tariffs for 90 days, maintaining the base line 10% rate, and postponed other charges whilst discussions continued with various nations and trading blocs.

US Trade Court’s Scathing Observations

• Currently, at least seven lawsuits contest these tariffs. The trade court's Wednesday ruling consolidated two of these cases. The trade court delivered judgements on dual cases, filed independently by businesses and state government alliances, contending that the US President had encroached upon Congress's power of the purse.
• The ruling highlighted that the tariffs failed to address their intended objectives. The states' argument emphasised that US trade deficits, persisting for 49 consecutive years through various economic conditions, hardly constituted an immediate emergency.
• The Court of International Trade panel, consisting of three judges, determined that Trump had overstepped his presidential authority, invalidating most trade restrictions implemented during his tenure since January.
• The verdict additionally nullifies emergency-power-based duties that Trump had separately imposed on Canada, Mexico and China.
• "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the president in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," said the three-judge panel in their collective unsigned decision.
• The court determined that IEEPA does not grant such extensive powers and invalidates the disputed tariffs implemented by the Trump administration under its provisions. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."
• The civil trade dispute court clarified that any interpretation of IEEPA granting unlimited authority over tariffs violates constitutional principles, as per the official court documentation.
• The bench explained that IEEPA permits presidential action to enforce essential economic sanctions during emergencies specifically to address exceptional and extraordinary threats. The verdict provided a 10-day window for the White House administration to finalise the administrative procedures required to cease the tariff implementation.
• As per the court ruling, other Trump-era tariffs remain valid, specifically those on foreign steel, aluminium and automobiles. These particular levies were established through a different legal framework, requiring Commerce Department investigation rather than presidential discretion.

While the US Constitution assigns Congress the authority over taxation, including tariffs, presidents have gradually acquired increased control over tariff decisions, with Trump utilising these powers extensively.

Also Read | ‘It can either be big or beautiful, not both…’: Elon Musk disappointed by Donald Trump's ‘Big beautiful bill'; sign of fracture in key relationship?

What’s the road ahead for Trump Admin?

The White House criticised the decision, contending that judges who were not elected should not interfere with Trump's management of the matter.

"President Trump pledged to put America first, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness," Trump's spokesman Kush Desai said.

The Trump administration's legal team immediately submitted an appeal against the verdict on Wednesday.

Stephen Miller, a senior White House adviser close to Trump, expressed his disapproval on social media, describing it as a "judicial coup" that he claimed was "out of control."